Talk:Melanie Phillips

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Addition to page[edit]

I was thinking that the following point could be added to the page:

a note about the way, unlike Peter Hitcens, Melanie Phillips never answers comments on her blog. — Unsigned, by: 80.239.243.196 / talk / contribs

I find myself agreeing with the first sixty percent of what she says but getting lost around "Atheism, radical individualism and gay marriage are bad and global warming isn't happening." --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this first 60% the things like "oxygen is a good thing" and "you know what, some jobs would be nice" and "hey, did you know the sky is blue"? Scarlet A.pngsshole 18:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

More her views on Israel, Islamism, left-wing authoritarianism and censorship by the liberal media. She's also a vocal critic of Obama and state schools. Pamela Geller's my girl anyway. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure why but I just find her incredibly sexy. I think it's her voice. It's like whipped cream laced with shards of glass. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Spectator articles are missing. Any back-ups anywhere?

Battle-axe[edit]

Here is a diff.

From my talk page:

"Battle-axe" is a term used for wives who are horribly mean and controlling. We don't present any evidence that Melanie Phillips fits that description, and even if we did, since it's only a term applied to one gender, it's problematic, and probably doesn't belong on RW. Rand0 (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The term can apply to any formidable character, most often female, but not necessarily. It is not solely reserved for "wives who are horribly mean and controlling."
On its face, calling someone a battle-ax denotes a formidable nature, and implies the person is experienced with conflict and its decisive resolution. The term can be used fondly or in hostility. When applied to someone like a mother-in-law, the degree of fondness depends heavily on context. I don't see any reason to exclude it from RW. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
For anyone's amusement who stops by, here is something Douglas Adams wrote in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency:
"Michael usually referred to his mother as an old battle-ax, but if she was fairly to be compared to a battle-ax it would only be to an exquisitely crafted, beautifully balanced battle-ax, with an elegant minimum of fine engraving which stopped just short of its gleaming razored edge. One swipe from such an instrument and you wouldn't even know you'd been hit until you tried to look at your watch a bit later and discovered that your arm wasn't on."
Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I think SJC's fondly/hostilely distinction suggests the word means different enough things as to be problematic. In my own mind, Margaret Thatcher is a prototype for a battle-axe and I probably mean it in both ways at once, but with a little more of the hostility. Now, as for 'axe' vs. 'ax', that's another matter entirely ... MarmotHead (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well-aimed ambiguity can be a vital part of an apt descriptor. When used to describe something as complex and mutable as a live person, simplistic reductionist terms can be more problematic, IMO. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)